Skip to main content

Full text of "Unsorted FBI Documents"

See other formats


Attachment to Independent Case Review Report 

For CDRU # 129 Case file # 95-265396. 


Material Examiner: 


Malone (RO~) 


Remarks: 

Case resulted in trial, transcript available . 



i 


INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT 

+ 

■ 

■ 

■ b 

* 

", 

■ ■ 

■ 

■ q. ■ 

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson 

■ + * 

■ . ■ ■ 

■ ■ * . J 

■ ■ 

w 

m m 

► 

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber 


Review commenced at: 1 2:45 PM (Time), 1 1/16/00 (Date) 


File U: 95-265396 


Laboratory #(s): 50205046 

60122029 


Examiner(s) & Symbols 



Reviewed 

Not Reviewed 

Reviewed 

Not Reviewed 

RQ 

Xu 

□ 

□ 

□ 

WM.TT 

□ 

XD 

□ 

□ 


□ 

D 

□ 

□ 


Materials Reviewed 

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael P Malone 


Testimony Date(s): unknown Pages: 19 un-numbered pages 


Laboratory Report(s): 


Laboratory Number: 

50205046 

Date: 

May 1 0, 1 985 

Laboratory Number: 

60122029 

Date: 

May 30, 1986 

Laboratory Number: 


Date: 


Examiner Bench Notes of: 

RQ/technician 


1 , 


Laboratory Number: 50205046 


60122029 


Page 1 of 4 

CRM - 10713 


Initials: 


Wa£ any other material reviewed? )£□ . 'Yes □ No ■ 

i i 

" 

" m m k 

T 

■ 

■. ■ U 

^If-yes, please identify and/or describe the material;. „ Submitting agency letters dated 1/23/85 and 1/21/86 and 

Malone's dictation for 50205046 ’ - 

■ 

■ 


Results of Review 

r 

File #; 95*265396 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q16-Q22, K1Q-K13 

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes: 

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on 
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses 


1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the 
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)? 

□ Yes □ No nX Unable to Determine 

2) Arc the examination results set forth in the laboratory rcport(s) supported and adequately documented in 

the bench notes? o Yes OX No a Unable to Determine 


Review of Testimony: 

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on 
additional pages for any “No” or "Unable to Determine” Responses 


□ Transcript not available. 


3) 

Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? 

OX Yes 

□ No 

o Unable to Determine 

4) 

Testimony consistent with the bench notes? 

□ Yes 

□X No 

□ Unable to Determine 

5) 

Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? 

□ Yes 

□X No 

□ Unable to Determine 


t 


Page 


2 of t 


i 


Initials: 


+ 


Comments - 

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable. 

. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed) 




File #: 


95-2653 96 


■ 

# 1 . It cannot be determined from the documentation that the tests were performed in a scientifically acceptable 


manner. 


#2, The results are documented in the notes, but the notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. This is not 


adequate documentation. 

The technician docs not document the recovery of any hair from the Q items. 


Abbreviations are used that are difficult to interpret (such as “M-lt dist, It indist" and "cut-ssp”) to describe some 


of the characteristics of the hair. 


The laboratory report does not include the result that a pubic hair was recovered from QlS-victim’s jeans that 


does not match the victim or the suspect hair. 


#4. The testimony is consistent with the notes except that the pubic hair recovered from QlS-victim's jeans is 


Review completed at: 


2:15 PM (Time), 


II / 16/2000 


(Date) 


Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 


1.50 hour 


I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review 
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 pages. 



(Signature) 


(Date) 


Page 


of 



Initials: 


+ 


Additional Comments 

■ : (Set forth by question #, if applicable) 

m 

File #: 95-265396 — f : _ : 

" ■ 

™ " " ™ 1 ■ P P 

#4 (continued): . - 

not revealed during testimony. 

5* RQ misrepresents his experience of having examined hair from 10,000+ people and only twice was unable to 
distinguish the hair to the equivalent of the Gaudette study done at the RCMP, The Gaudette study attempted to 
calculate the -frequency of a chance match ofa. common, featureless head hair, and arrived at a one in 4500